17 replies to this topic

[AP514]

ok.... All I see are 5-6 ASSAULTS and a few Lights running around..........


If Players were to pay for REPAIRS you would see MED MEKs return...?

Running ASSAULTS should be a Break Even affair..or at best make little C-bills (w/out a Premium account.)

Doing this will bring back MED Meks to the Fights.................

[Karl Streiger]

No it will not ...
I really would love to see it just because it should be part of MWO Experience.

But it is a really bad balancing mechanic - look for example the quad Artemis IV 20 LRM boat - may it be imbalanced even OP... if you say - hey it is balanced because the bill for rearm eat you allive -.... so you need other mechs to generate C-Bills - or take another - sound not so bad doesen't it?

But it is bad.... because if you spend MC for getting C-Bills (even when you will be bankrupt in real live too in a short time - considering the MC pricing - and how to exchange them for C-Bills) - you can drive an obviously broken build.

So under the hood - rearm without a given balance is P2W.
Rearm with given balance however - is an enrichment.

[Dirus Nigh]

Oh by Blakes curly short hairs, we do not need R&R back in the game. It was a devise that just pissed off almost every one.

[Xenois Shalashaska]

R&R is a must if this game is to be a simulator and not arcade !

[Felicitatem Parco]

R&R would have to be fair between paying and free players... so you can't just say "More Expensive tech costs more C-Bills!" because that means Paying Players can afford superior technology that can give them a skill-independent Battlefield Advantage.

That's kind of why it was removed - paying players got to use more expensive Tech.

So, any proposed R&R would have to not affect free players unfairly or disproportionately. The only thing I have heard that matches this was a proposal someone made to reduce the earnings of Assault/Heavy Mechs to simulate R&R, and make it so you can never lose money on a match.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

R&R was easily abuse-able with how it was implemented, and it was rough on new players. But, I'd be fine if we have or not.

But what if instead R&R was simulated in end match earnings where assaults and heavies earn less than they do now, due to the cost of running them?

[blinkin]

Dirus Nigh, on 10 July 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

Oh by Blakes curly short hairs, we do not need R&R back in the game. It was a devise that just pissed off almost every one.

except the half to two thirds of the community who vote in favor of it on every poll i have ever seen.

[blinkin]

Prosperity Park, on 10 July 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

R&R would have to be fair between paying and free players... so you can't just say "More Expensive tech costs more C-Bills!" because that means Paying Players can afford superior technology that can give them a skill-independent Battlefield Advantage.

That's kind of why it was removed - paying players got to use more expensive Tech.

So, any proposed R&R would have to not affect free players unfairly or disproportionately. The only thing I have heard that matches this was a proposal someone made to reduce the earnings of Assault/Heavy Mechs to simulate R&R, and make it so you can never lose money on a match.

yes there would be some pay to win element to the game with RR, BUT the game over all was made better because the expensive mechs were not flooding the field like they are now. with the current system new players get disproportionately screwed because they are the only ones on the field that aren't piloting a min/maxed assaults that cost 15,000,000cbills.

[Bhael Fire]

I'd be cool with an automatic "Repair and Rearm" penalty that's taken out of your rewards after each match.

Basically, if your RR bill is higher than your reward, you get nothing at the end of the match.

[blinkin]

Bhael Fire, on 10 July 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

I'd be cool with an automatic "Repair and Rearm" penalty that's taken out of your rewards after each match.

Basically, if your RR bill is higher than your reward, you get nothing at the end of the match.

something like this might possibly work. not my first choice, but if it gets the job done i won't complain.

[Sug]

Eye have know idea wear they went.

[Adridos]

Xenois Shalashaska, on 10 July 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

R&R is a must if this game is to be a simulator and not arcade !

I don't know of any proper millitary simulator that has repair and rearm you actually pay for...

IL-2 Sturmovik? Nope. A-10 Warthog? Nope. Arma series? Nope.

You know why that is? Becuase those things are covered by the millitary. Soldiers do not and could not pay those expenses, both in RL and in BT.

[Modo44]

AP514, on 10 July 2013 - 06:15 AM, said:

ok.... All I see are 5-6 ASSAULTS and a few Lights running around..........

It's the matchmaker ******* with you. Try taking a heavy out for a spin. You will be more likely to end up on a light-less team with few (if any) assaults.

Separately from that: Half the player base is losing more than winning on a regular basis. Making them pay more when losing would alienate a lot of people, usually not the ones with super powerful meta builds. See the problem? So did PGI, which is why they removed it.

[Xenois Shalashaska]

Adridos, on 10 July 2013 - 10:56 PM, said:

I don't know of any proper millitary simulator that has repair and rearm you actually pay for...

IL-2 Sturmovik? Nope. A-10 Warthog? Nope. Arma series? Nope.

You know why that is? Becuase those things are covered by the millitary. Soldiers do not and could not pay those expenses, both in RL and in BT.

Was never referring to army simulator or any other game simulator. Im referring to the game in its self as "realistic" ie. simulating realistic outcomes. R&R was never pay to win. You ran big weapons, you could not make money. If used standard engines with laser weapon based you could make money and if you didn't die. made the game more tactical.

[blinkin]

Adridos, on 10 July 2013 - 10:56 PM, said:

I don't know of any proper millitary simulator that has repair and rearm you actually pay for...

IL-2 Sturmovik? Nope. A-10 Warthog? Nope. Arma series? Nope.

You know why that is? Becuase those things are covered by the millitary. Soldiers do not and could not pay those expenses, both in RL and in BT.

and in any of those games do you buy those military vehicles with rewards you have earned? i know for sure you don't on arma and il2, i also suspect the same is true of a10.

SUPPOSEDLY we are mech warriors and we own all of our mechs. the houses might help out some, but why would they invest very much money repairing your crap?

if we want the houses to take care of repairs then we also need to completely get rid of any ability to buy or alter mechs.

we own the mechs, so it is our job to feed and take care of them.

[Ronan]

R&R as implemented didn't work, as noted above. But it was damn cool and "flavorful" and just exceedingly BT/MW. I'd like to have it back in some form. It is not at the top of my list of what I'd like to see added to the game tho. Hopefully someday it'll come back.

[Adridos]

blinkin, on 11 July 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

we own the mechs, so it is our job to feed and take care of them.

No we don't.

Except for special cases and Solarians, noone basically owns any mech.

Clanners don't own a mech, because every mech is property of the whole Clan.
House Warriors don't own mechs, becuase they are all assigned to them by the state.
Mercenaries don't own mechs, only get them assigned from the corporation's stockpile.

[blinkin]

Adridos, on 11 July 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

No we don't.

Except for special cases and Solarians, noone basically owns any mech.

Clanners don't own a mech, because every mech is property of the whole Clan.
House Warriors don't own mechs, becuase they are all assigned to them by the state.
Mercenaries don't own mechs, only get them assigned from the corporation's stockpile.

i don't remember ever being assigned to any of my mechs. i remember buying them and then being able to do whatever i wanted with them. sounds like ownership to me.

Edited by blinkin, 11 July 2013 - 10:14 AM.